Dawn (Jess Weixler) is not like the other girls. For one thing, she's in high school and still a complete virgin. But also, she has a set of vicious teeth inside of her woman parts. And, wouldn't you know it, those boys just can't leave their mitts off of her... bad news for everyone involved.
I have to give plenty of credit to writer/director Mitchell Lichtenstein, who is surprisingly older than you might expect for this sort of material. The only film I can even compare to this one as far as controversial subject matter is "Sick Girl". Lichtenstein, what other goodies do you have in store for us? Jess Weixler, who plays Dawn O'Keefe, was largely unknown but is now taking off... I suspect it has something to do with this role. The film seems to have a strong cult following, as I've heard about it multiple times in the past few years, despite not ever receiving a theatrical release and getting ignored by many mainstream outlets.
The film shows penises -- a handful of them -- but not vaginas (a parallel to the textbook incident); is this "modesty"? It's an interesting reversal where naked women are traditionally most acceptable in films. Even soft-core has no problem showing women mostly nude while shooting men at strange angles to avoid the slip of any genitalia.
Jim Emerson, taking the place of Roger Ebert, ties this in to horror and science fiction history. "The 1950s sci-fi premise would be that Dawn is the unfortunate victim of radioactivity, but there's something else in the air (and maybe the water) here. It's called sexuality, and it permeates her everyday life: from pop culture (parental-advisory lyrics, R and PG-13-rated movies) to anatomical textbook illustrations in health class to the hormones and pheromones that hang heavily in the atmosphere, like the fetid steam in a gymnasium locker room. Everywhere she turns, Dawn the dental damsel-in-distress is surrounded by temptation." Emerson takes this is a bit far at times. The lyrics and movies part is his speculation, not made apparent in the film. And yes, while she does live in a world of temptation, she does not actually seem all that interested in boys. She easily maintains her virginity for a fair portion of the film, despite men's advances. He is correct to show that the sci-fi aspect is played down. While there is clearly heavy pollution in her backyard, we are never given that topic directly. This is never an anti-pollution film, despite that being the implied source of Dawn's mutation.
Emerson also draws the horror parallel: "While 'Carrie' is the obvious influence (with genital transmogrification instead of telekinesis, and the other sex doing the bulk of the bleeding), 'Teeth' could be seen as a 'Reefer Madness' for the New Chastity Generation. The camp sensibility, however, is fully self-aware." Yes, the campiness is self-aware, and "Carrie" is hardly like "Reefer Madness" and the connection is pretty much a teenage girl going through life changes and lashing out on those who oppress her. The men doing the bleeding? That's a stretch... lay off the literary criticism when analyzing films.
Anyway, "Teeth" is a must-see for sure. More and more often it seems that the underground films are the ones worth seeing, and this is no exception. You could go see the latest theater triumph (as I type this, it's "The Last Exorcism"), but I assure you that you'll find Lichtenstein's "Teeth" to be far more satisfying and memorable.
